If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

This is a jab at the other thread but it's also a legit question seeing as how the Pacers have lost 4 games in a row since his injury against Golden State (he only played 13 minutes due to injury in that game).

Even when CJ's not hitting his shot, he usually plays good defense and he provides spacing on the floor that the Pacers just don't have with Donald Sloan. Evan Turner running the point has been pretty disastrous as well, especially from a defensive standpoint. C.J. really is the best on the team at staying in front of his man defensively. George Hill is good at closing out on jump shooters but he gets beat off the dribble on a regular basis when he has to play someone quick like Steph Curry or Patrick Beverley.

Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to naptownmenace For This Useful Post:

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

He also has those games where he can give you 12+ off the bench and we could have really used one against he Mavs. I love what CJ has done at the backup point and when he's needed to start, he's done an incredible job filling in.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BenR1990 For This Useful Post:

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

CJ give the Pacers a legit outside shooter. Evan, Lance and Luis are not really 3-point shooters. They are much better in the mid-range area. Add to that, Ian and Sloan are non-shooters. When CJ is out, the Pacers really don't have anyone to stretch the defense.

Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

I think it's one of the pieces. I saw Bruno tweeting that Paul doesn't have Shaw or Danny around any more to 'keep him focused.' Is that enough on its own to answer for all of this? No, I don't think so.

But then factor in his back injury. And Waton's injury. And the adjustment to Turner being here instead of Danny (thinking more of chemistry and fit as opposed to production). They start to add up, but even then that doesn't explain Roy's struggles. I think there was talk coming out of the all-star break about reigning Lance in, and I think that's made things worse because you took the good away with the bad when he complied while simultaneously the team has since struggled offensively when they try to do it 'the right way' (and I'm not saying it's wrong, either) and that results in the worse of both worlds regarding that particularly point.

Add all of the above up, and this losing streak starts to make a lot more sense, I think. And I'm thinking there's still probably more to it than that because on both sides of the ball the team has been just out of sync and/or out of position too often.

I can envision a recovery happening soon, but it's definitely sucked lately.

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

I think it's one of the pieces. I saw Bruno tweeting that Paul doesn't have Shaw or Danny around any more to 'keep him focused.' Is that enough on its own to answer for all of this? No, I don't think so.

But then factor in his back injury. And Waton's injury. And the adjustment to Turner being here instead of Danny (thinking more of chemistry and fit as opposed to production). They start to add up, but even then that doesn't explain Roy's struggles. I think there was talk coming out of the all-star break about reigning Lance in, and I think that's made things worse because you took the good away with the bad when he complied while simultaneously the team has since struggled offensively when they try to do it 'the right way' (and I'm not saying it's wrong, either) and that results in the worse of both worlds regarding that particularly point.

Add all of the above up, and this losing streak starts to make a lot more sense, I think. And I'm thinking there's still probably more to it than that because on both sides of the ball the team has been just out of sync and/or out of position too often.

I can envision a recovery happening soon, but it's definitely sucked lately.

Agreeing with HIcks but adding that I noticed the slippage starting before the AS break.....like when we picked up Bynum at eh same time talk around the league was about how Hibbert wasn't getting called for the fouls (I think they were trying to psych the refs with talk about him not going straight up). It seemed they really got to Hibbert and the refs on that. I also see Lance getting into a lot more trouble with his dribble penetration. It seems he either loses the ball himself or throws a bad pass. I dunno, it just seems like the wheels started coming off long long ago.

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

Watson is a better basketball player than Sloan, and a better option for floor general than Evan Turner, so I'd say the difference between a good bench PG and Donald Sloan/out of position Evan Turner is pretty important.

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

As I scan through a few threads, I find mentions of Hill to be as invisible as he tends to be on the court. People talk about Hibbert's lack of rebounding, the loss of Hansborough, the Granger trade, PG's back, Scola's poor shooting.... But, what about the lack of aggressiveness from our starting point guard?

(I haven't been around much, so forgive me if I've missed the Hill talk)

Hill is a scorer. He can take a game over offensively, yet rarely does. He seems to just wander around without a purpose. He should be our 2nd leading scorer, IMO. 11 points and 3.4 assists per game is unacceptable. I just want to see him play with an edge. Something.

Re: Did Watson Really Mean That Much?

As I scan through a few threads, I find mentions of Hill to be as invisible as he tends to be on the court. People talk about Hibbert's lack of rebounding, the loss of Hansborough, the Granger trade, PG's back, Scola's poor shooting.... But, what about the lack of aggressiveness from our starting point guard?

(I haven't been around much, so forgive me if I've missed the Hill talk)

Hill is a scorer. He can take a game over offensively, yet rarely does. He seems to just wander around without a purpose. He should be our 2nd leading scorer, IMO. 11 points and 3.4 assists per game is unacceptable. I just want to see him play with an edge. Something.

He's playing as a PG. They should sometimes go to a lineup where Hill is a SG, and CJ is the PG. Allowing Hill to score more. But this goes back to Vogel not knowing how to use all of these versatile pieces. Also, with CJ hurt now, they should expand a five man rotation featuring Solo at the back up 2 and Evan at back up PG. With Bynum, Cope, and Rasual.